1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.11411 OF 2014(LR) BETWEEN: SRI.ADMAR MUTT, CAR STREET, UDUPI – 576 101. REP BY ITS MANAGER, SRI.INNA VENKATARAMANA MUCHINTHAYA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE INNA GURURAJA MUCHINTHAYA, ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S K ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, UDUPI(KAUP HOBLI), UDUPI – 576 101. UDUPI DISTRICT. 3. SHYAMA PRABHU, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMAIAH PRABHU, R/AT PADOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT – 562 103. 2 4. PRECILLA MENEZES, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O VINCENT MENEZES, R/AT ‘SORPU HOUSE”, SHRIVA VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SHOBITH N SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.12.2021 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 LAND TRIBUNAL, UDUPI VIDE ANNX-A AND TO DECLARE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL & WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the Land Tribunal order dated 27.12.2011 whereby certain lands described in the Schedule to the petition have been introduced to the earlier order dated 07.03.1977 by way of Corrigendum. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the original order having been made in March, 1977, decades thereafter the amendment of the kind could not have been effected to the said order, by introducing two 3 more lands. The Right to property having been constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A, the Land Tribunal could not have casually tampered with the same, argues he. 2. Learned HCGP appearing for the Land Tribunal and the learned Private Counsel appearing for the tenants vehemently oppose the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order contending that since the mistake had crept in inasmuch as, the two lands were left over, the same have been brought within the frame of the Land Tribunal order dated 07.03.1977 by virtue of impugned order and therefore, the Writ Court cannot interfere in matters like this. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers & the original LCR, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 4 a) The Land Tribunal comprising of the then members had accorded occupancy in respect of certain lands vide order dated 07.03.1977 and this was done on the basis of the Survey Report that was then prepared on the basis of statement of Mr. Ramayyaa Naika the original tenant which fact is mentioned therein specifically. The said Report does not reflect the lands now introduced by way of corrigendum. There is force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the right to Property being constitutionally guaranteed u/a 330A cannot be cut short decades after the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy in respect of other lands. b) There is another grave error apparent on the face of impugned order which has been structured on the basis of a new Survey Report obtained decades after on the basis of the statement of a son of the original tenant namely, Mr. Shyama Prabhu at Annexure-K. What the Tribunal should have seen is as to what was the 5 state of affairs as on the cut off date i.e., 30.06.1979; what all happened thereafter cannot much be the subject matter of Consideration before the Land Tribunal in the proceedings of the kind. c) the vehement contention of Mr. Shobith Shetty appearing for the Respondent - tenants that Sub-section 6 of Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 does not prescribe any period of limitation for the rectification of mistakes and therefore, rectification can be sought for & effected at any time after the mistake is discovered appears to be too broad a proposition invokable in the fact matrix of the case at hands. That apart, the proviso to subsection 6 of Section 48-A has been introduced only w.e.f 20.10.1995 by way of amendment and therefore, the Land Tribunal orders made anterior to the said point of time not fit into the frame of said proviso. An argument to the contrary would breed a lot of mischief to the land owners and therefore cannot be accepted. 6 d) Something needs to be stated about the Petitioner-Mutt. When occupancy was sought for in respect of several lands by the original tenant – Ramayya Naika, the Petitioner did not contest the claim. That is really appreciable. The stand of the Mutt was perfectly in accord with the intent of agrarian reforms policy for giving effect to which the 1961 Act has been enacted. Therefore, the gracious act of the Mutt cannot be taken undue advantage of by any one more and more particularly by the Respondent, the original tenant himself having not made any such application during his life time, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the Petitioners. e) In support of his contention, the petitioner Mutt has always stood tall, the counsel relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.15198/2011 (LR) between SRI ADMAR MUTT Vs. SMT. YASHODA & OTHERS, (wherein the Petitioner 7 herein was a party) disposed off on 23.12.2021. Paragraph Nos. 18 & 19 read as under: “18. The Land Reforms Act, 1961 is undoubtedly a beneficial legislation. It is important to remember that this piece of legislation is meant to preserve, protect and also confer benefits on persons who are able to clearly establish the factum of agrarian relationship as tenant in respect of the land, for which Form No.7 is filed by them to register them as occupants. Such a legislation should not be allowed to be used as a tool for aggrandizing undeserving persons by showing them as tenants in respect of the lands. In this case, it is necessary to notice that the alleged landlord is a Mutt, which is a religious and charitable institution. Lands are endowed upon such institutions by devotees in the hope that by using the usufructs and other benefits derived out of the land the Mutt could be run and it could promote the religious and charitable activities…………. 19. In another case (SRI ADMAR MUTT, UDUPI AND ANOTHER vs. RAMA SHETTY (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS reported in 2006 (4) KLJ 258), the learned Single Judge has observed as follows: “15. This Court also has to add a word of caution. The land Tribunal has to be careful in considering the claim made 8 against the Mutt and other religious institutions in the light of the land reform laws. Bona fide tiller has to be granted occupancy rights in the light of the laudable object of the Land Reforms Act. But at the same time land reforms laws cannot be made use of by a litigant without there being any material to show tenancy in terms of the laws governing such tenancy rights resulting in the Mutt being deprived of its lard provided by devotees of the Mutt. Insofar as the Mutt/temple lands are concerned, the Tribunal has to be extremely careful in seeing as to whether the tenants were bona fide tenants and that the tenancy is created by those persons who have right to do so in the matter as otherwise, lands granted by the devotees or the believers of that Mutt or temple are lost.” We respectfully concur with the views expressed in the above two decisions.” In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing eh impugned order. If entries are mutated on the basis of the impugned order and Form No.10 has been issued following the same, the same are also set at naught 9 coupled with a direction to restore the entries in favour of the Mutt within sixty days. All contentions are kept open. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Bsv